"secondary worship", obeisance, Jesus

by NanaR 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NanaR

  Friends:

  I have a question for the researchers here. I tried to do a search, but the word "worship" brings up way too many posts to filter through.

  I remember as a young JW being told that JWs render "secondary worship" to Jesus Christ. The explanation of the difference between obeisance and worship entered into that conversation.

  I have done a search on the WT CD but don't come up with that particular phrase. This makes me wonder if perhaps it was a description my father used himself rather than something directly stated in the literature.

  Anyway, if any of you researchers know of a WT source that refers to the worship due to Jesus as "secondary worship" or a similar statement, I would appreciate citations (which I should then be able to track down in my electronic library).

  I know the Society has said that Catholics call their use of images "relative worship", and I found that term, but not the term "secondary worship".

  Help?

  Ruth
• 

  Guest39

  I don't remember anything about secondary worship, but I do remember being quite confused between obeisance and worship. I could never remember which Jesus was 'allowed' to have. Very similar to spirit-led versus inspired for the GB?
• 

  EverAStudent

  "You shall have no other gods before Me…You shall not give obeisance to them" (Exodus 20:3-5, excerpts) Normally we say, "You shall not worship them," however, the Hebrew word is "shachah" which means both worship and obeisance. So, it really does not matter whether you want to give Jesus obeisance or worship because God requires that no other "god" be given either obeisance or worship. Of course, since I believe that Jesus, like the Father, is Jehovah, it is reasonable and right for me to give Him both worship and obeisance.

  A Student
• 

  Atlantis

  According to the Watchtower Society, everything relating to Jesus Christ is "secondary" when the subject comes to Jehovah and Jesus! Knowledge, authority, power, reigning, everything! Watchtower-1978-March-1st-p.24 "He is the One who really does the reigning, and his Christ or Anointed One, Jesus, gets "authority" to rule in a secondary way under the Lord God." Scan: http://www.imagger.com/view/344516_scan-10001.jpg.html So, according to the above quote, Jesus Christ rules only in a secondary way and Jehovah is the one actually reigning. In-other-words, Jesus is just the "assistant" manager! Even the Holy Spirit is spoken of as "secondary" in scripture! Watchtower-1957-July-15th-p.431 "Yes, how could the holy spirit be equal with Jehovah the Father when it is given such a secondary position in the Scriptures?" Scan: http://www.imagger.com/view/894247_scan-20001.jpg.html So, here we have another "assistant" manager! The Watchtower leaves a "big-loophole" when the subject comes to "worship" of Jesus Christ. For instance, when the subject comes to the angels "worshipping" Jesus what does the Watchtower admit? They admit an "uncertain" understanding in regards to this subject. And, if they are uncertain as to the angels worshipping Jesus, then there is good reason to conclude that the Watchtower is not absolutely sure about the "entire" topic of worshipping Jesus Christ! Remember that little word ( If ), that can have a large application or meaning? The Watchtower-1970-November-15th-p.704 states: "If what we understand as worship???????? Here is the whole quote: "Hence, if what we understand as "worship" is apparently directed to the Son by angels, it is in reality being directed through him to Jehovah God, the Sovereign Ruler, "the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters." Scan: http://www.imagger.com/view/367753_scan-20002.jpg.html If what we understand as worship? Apparently? In reality? Directed through him? The Watchtower's understanding? Hasn't the Watchtower admitted to having a "slanted" understanding of scripture before? Man's Salvation Out Of World Distress At Hand-p.136 "All understanding of the Holy Scriptures was slanted in that direction or adjusted to that idea." Scan: http://www.imagger.com/view/850049_scan-30001.jpg.html Why were JW's believing in an "idea" instead of the scriptures? We can also make good use of that little word--( If )--! What --( If )--the Watchtower's understanding is wrong? What--( If )--worship is really suppose to go to Jesus? Not "through" him, but "to" HIM? What ( If ) the Watchtower "changes" their mind again and commands JW's to "worship" Jesus as they have done in the past? What would happen--( If ) Jesus were to arrive visibly and ask JW's why they did not worship Him during certain years of their lives? Will JW's be able to point their finger at Brooklyn New York and come up with a good excuse to answer Jesus? Do JW's really feel safe at heart when they put their full trust in the Watchtower's "slanted understanding" of scripture? N.
• 

  Rapunzel

  I understand that the term obeisance is a technical, specialized term when contrasted with the term worship. However, for what it is worth, the term obeisance is a French term [in French,you add an "s" and write obeissance] meaning simply "obedience." The French term obeissance derives from the verb, obeir, meaning to "obey." Perhaps this etymology can shed some light on the technical term obeisance. Perhaps the term connotes the idea that people should obey and heed the words of Jesus without worshipping him. Perhaps the term obeisance implies that Christians should make their behavior conform to Jesus' words without imlying that Christians should worship him; they should limit their worship to the Father alone. As I have said, I am not sure how the term obeisance is contrasted in technical terms with the word worship; and I have no dictionary of religious terms at my disposal. However, I am sure of its etymology; English took it from the French.
• 

  NanaR

  Nevada,

  Thanks!! This will be SO helpful.

  I'm in a dialogue with a friend about this issue.

  When I read this convoluted reasoning, I am just amazed that I used to spew this stuff with regularity :-(

  Pax,

  Ruth
• 

  Atlantis

  Ruth:

  Your welcome!

  N.
• 

  Borgia

  Although it may implicate obeisance, the difference in act is null and void.
  
  It really comes down to the intention of the one who does the act of proskuneo. Inferring that any act of proskuneo towards Jesus should automatically be secondary or being translated with obeisance is saying more about the translators than the story.
  
  You may find some very interesting information here: jewish encyclopedia
  
  See also BAAL worship.
  
  Cheers
  
  Borgia